IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

JO-ANN GOLDEN, LYNDA MAHONEY,
ROSANNE MALAKATES
Petitioners

Filed pursuant to
Fla.R.App.P.9.100(f)(2)

v.
Case No:
CITY OF LAKE WORTH
In Re Applicant: GULFSTREAM HOTEL LLC
Respondent
____________________/
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioners (collectively Petitioners) file this Petition for Writ of
Certiorari pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100 and
9.190(b)(3) to quash a quasi-judicial decision by the CITY OF LAKE
WORTH City Commission to approve Ord No. 2016-4 and HRPB 1501300001 on January 5, 2016. The decision of the City Commission does not
meet the essential requirements of law established in the City of Lake Worth
Charter as amended by Ordinance 2012-30, which clearly and expressly states
that buildings in this area of the City shall not exceed a 45 foot height limit.
The City Charter provision establishing a maximum height in this area of the
City is not expressly preempted by state law.

JURISDICTION
This Court has been given jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari by
Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of
Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In first tier certiorari proceedings, the circuit court must determine
(1) whether procedural due process is accorded, (2) whether the essential
requirements of the law have been observed, and (3) whether the
administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial
evidence. Broward County v. G.B.V. International, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 at
843 (Fla.2001) quoting Deerfield Beach v. Valliant, 419 So. 2d 624 at 626
(Fla. 1982) (emphasis added).
Petitioners in this case respectfully request this court reverse and
remand the actions of the Board on the grounds that the Board failed to
comply with the essential requirements of law established in the City Charter
by CityOrdinance 2012-30.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
The City of Lake Worth City Commission voted to approve a
rezoning on January 5, 2016 that violates the essential requirements of law
set forth in the City Charter limiting the maximum height of buildings to 45

feet in this area of Lake Worth. See, City Charter, as amended by Ordinance
2012-30.
PETITIONERS AND STANDING
Petitioners submitted written objections and appeared at the City
Commission quasi-judicial hearings on the subject rezoning.
Petitioner Lynda Mahoney resides one block away from the subject
rezoning at 131 North Golfview Road #5 Lake Worth, Florida 33460. See,
Jan. 5 2016 Transcript. p.15.
Petitioner Rosanne Malakates resides directly across the street from
the rezoning at 101 South Lakeside Drive Lake Worth, Florida 33460. See,
Jan. 5 2016 Transcript. p.15, 26-28.
Petitioner Jo-Ann Golden resides at 502 North Palmway Lake Worth,
Florida 33460. See, Jan. 5 2016 Transcript. p.10-12.
Petitioners are adversely affected parties who appeared and objected
below at the City Commission quasi-judicial hearing held on the rezoning
request.
The test for standing is found in Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d
832 (Fla. 1972), and proximity to a particular use of land has been found to
satisfy this test exceeding the general interest in community good shared in
common with all citizens; however, when determining standing, the courts

should not only consider the proximity of property, but the type and scale of
the challenged project in relation to Petitioners property. Rinker Materials
Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County 528 So.2d 904, 906-907 (Fla. 3rd DCA.,
1987); Upper Keys Citizens Coalition v. Wedel, 341 So.2d 1062 (3rd DCA
1987); Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v City of Miami, 393 So.2d 1197 (3rd DCA
1981). See also, City of St. Petersburg, Bd. of Adjustment v. Marelli 728
So.2d 1197, 1198 (Fla 2nd DCA, 1999).
Petitioners meet the common law test for standing to bring this action
set forth by the Florida Supreme Court under Renard v. Dade County, 261
So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972).
I.

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW

The City of Lake Worth City Commission voted to approve a

rezoning on January 5, 2016 that violates the essential requirements of law
set forth in the City Charter limiting the maximum height of buildings to 45
feet in this area of Lake Worth. Petitioners objected to the violation of the
City Charter at the quasi-judicial hearing. See, Jan. 5 2016 Transcript. p.
10-12, 15-18, 26-28.
Compliance with the City Charter is an essential requirement of law
within the City of Lake Worth Florida. The decision by the City
Commission violates the City Charter because it does not comply with the
City Charter height limit of 45 feet in this area of the City. Jan. 5 2016
Transcript. 15-18.
On March 12, 2013, the electors at a referendum approved an

amendment to the City Charter Article IV, Section 11 contained in

Ordinance 2012-30, Exhibit A. Id.
The Charter Amendment the City Charter Article IV, Section 11
contained in Ord. 2012-30 met all legal requirements in Florida Statute
Section 166.031 and the City of Lake Worth Charter and became effective as
set forth in 166.031(2), Florida Statutes and Section 4 of Ordinance 2012-30.
Exh B-E. Id.
The adoption of a charter amendment by referendum is allowed by
Florida Statutes and a a referendum on a Charter Amendment is not
expressly preempted by Florida Statutes 163.3167(8), which preempts
referendums on plan amendments or development order. Id.
The Charter Amendment to Section 11 of the City Charter was neither
a plan amendment and nor a development order, but an amendment to the
Charter and therefore is not preempted by state law. Sarasota Alliance for
Fair Elections v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880 (Fla., 2010).
The City Charter height limit does not conflict with state law. As the
Florida Supreme Court established [t]he test of conflict between a local
government enactment and state law is whether one must violate one
provision in order to comply with the other. Putting it another way, a
conflict exists when two legislative enactments `cannot co-exist. Sarasota
Alliance for Fair Elections v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880 (Fla., 2010). See
also, City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, Inc., 852 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th
DCA, 2003).
No court has invalidated Section 11 of the City Charter as amended
by Ordinance 2012-30 and it remains effective and essential requirement of
law within the City of Lake Worth. Id.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Petitioners request an order from this court quashing and remanding the
decision below for failure to afford procedural due process and failure to
comply with essential requirements of law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ralf Brookes

RALF BROOKES ATTORNEY

Florida Bar No. 0778362
Attorney for PETITIONERS
1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107
Cape Coral, Florida 33904
Telephone (239) 910-5464
Facsimile (866) 341-6086
Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com
RalfBrookes@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by mail, fax or email on this date, February 2, 2016 to the
following:
City Attorney, City Hall, City of Lake Worth
7 North Dixie Highway
Lake Worth, FL 33460
/s/ Ralf Brookes
___________________
Ralf Brookes Attorney
Fla Bar No. 0778362
1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107
Cape Coral, Fl 33904
(239) 910-5464;
(866) 341-6086 fax
Email service:
ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com
RalfBrookes@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Petition for Writ of Certiorari complies with
the font requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1000(1).
/s/ Ralf Brookes Attorney
Fla Bar No. 0778362
1217 E Cape Coral Parkway #107
Cape Coral, Fl 33904
(239) 910-5464;
(866) 341-6086 fax
ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com
RalfBrookes@gmail.com